From dynamic presidential hopefuls such as Rep. Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain to rank-and-file party activists from across the country, Republicans who gathered in New Orleans Friday all pledged their fealty to the cause of defeating President Barack Obama in 2012.
herman_cain_rlc.jpgView full sizePatrick Semansky, The Associated PressRepublican presidential hopeful Herman Cain speaks at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans on Friday.

But Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former national party chairman, delivered a stern warning to Republican Leadership Conference delegates: Don't look for perfection in the potential nominees and don't even think about drafting a third-party candidate when the nomination fight is done.

"Don't get hung up on purity," he said. "In politics, purity is a loser. ... In this business, it is unity that wins elections. ... Barack Obama has worn out three sets of knee pads down his knees praying for the tea party to become a third party, because he can't lose."

Barbour, who has already announced that he isn't running for president, didn't call any of the announced candidates by name. But the warning was clearly a recognized party elder trying to navigate the disparate movements on display at the three-day conference that culminates Saturday with the announcement of a straw poll of more than 2,000 delegates.

since the tea party platform more closely represents true conservatism, I think a better title should be, "some RINO's or some people that think they are Republicans, fear the Tea party taking back the Republican party.

Adam Wood

06-18-2011, 10:18 AM

since the tea party platform more closely represents true conservatism, I think a better title should be, "some RINO's or some people that think they are Republicans, fear the Tea party taking back the Republican party.While there definitely is some truth to that, we simply cannot risk splitting the vote this time around. The opportunity to oust Obama is too great to allow internal differences to split the vote and put him back in for another disastrous four years.

Both the old guard GOP and the TEA partiers are going to have to have a little bit of give here to find someone who may not be quite so ideologically pure as either would like, but can still be acceptable and will beat Obama. Obama is incredibly beatable right now, and that's not likely to change, so there's no good reason to throw away the opportunity.

AmPat

06-18-2011, 10:19 AM

" Some Republicans Fear Tea Party Becoming a Third Party "
Good if the RINOs and establishment GOPers like McCain don't get with the program. We need to either clean house and get truly conservative or start a real conservative third party. The clock is ticking on the GOP.

Novaheart

06-18-2011, 10:22 AM

While there definitely is some truth to that, we simply cannot risk splitting the vote this time around. The opportunity to oust Obama is too great to allow internal differences to split the vote and put him back in for another disastrous four years.

Everyone says that every presidential election. That's how Obama got elected.Well, I'll certainly admit that it's been a mantra since Perot. A lot of that has to do with the general tense contentiousness of the whole primary process, though. There was no genuine threat of some split in the Democrats in 2008. No one was going to go off and form the Liberal Party or whatever and break the vote down between Hillary and Obama. And while I sincerely doubt that the TEA party faction would actually go off and start a new party all together, it's certainly been talked about.

Novaheart

06-18-2011, 10:30 AM

Good if the RINOs and establishment GOPers like McCain don't get with the program. We need to either clean house and get truly conservative or start a real conservative third party. The clock is ticking on the GOP.

There you have hit the nail on the head. The problem in this country is that we keep trying to shove everyone into one of two parties. It might give a good illusion of victory and national support, but what it really does is leave everyone holding his nose and pulling the lever.

The extreme right wing has little more in common with the center right, than the Progressive wing has in common with the center left. Center Left and Center Right usually disagree on one major (but not necessarily core) issue, or simple separate themselves by the group which they find most comfortable if not in agreement.

Look at the West Virginians interviewed after Reagan was elected. The West Virginians interviewed (white male, miners and other hard workers) were visibly surprised to discover that they weren't actually in agreement with the GOP or Reagan platform- but they felt comfortable in that group.

Multiple parties will change how Congress does business as well. You can't have this schoolyardish "winner takes all, we won neener neener neener" thing when multiple parties have to share power.

I'm not suggesting a coalition government. I don't know how England has survived with that system. But multiple parties mean that you have to have greater levels of cooperation, which might actually have the side effect of reducing the power of corporate lobbies.

fettpett

06-18-2011, 11:23 AM

If anyone leaves it'll be the RINO's and Elites in the party and most likely go over to the Dems

megimoo

06-18-2011, 11:41 AM

If anyone leaves it'll be the RINO's and Elites in the party and most likely go over to the Dems
They're already more than half way there.

fettpett

06-18-2011, 11:52 AM

They're already more than half way there.

I'm the majority of them make the jump and do it soon...sick of them trying to undermined progress and undermined the party all together

Novaheart

06-18-2011, 11:56 AM

If anyone leaves it'll be the RINO's and Elites in the party and most likely go over to the Dems

I think you are trying to convince yourself that the GOP is more right wing than it actually is. If the NYT poll is close, the 18% of the population would be in the Tea Party zone, meaning that about 36% of the GOP is in that zone. So 60% would reasonably be thought to be more centrist if we allow 4% to be way out in the far right.

Novaheart

06-18-2011, 11:58 AM

I'm the majority of them make the jump and do it soon...sick of them trying to undermined progress and undermined the party all together

What are you going to do with a small third party in a primarily two party country? At 18% the Tea Party is outnumbered both by mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats.

Molon Labe

06-18-2011, 12:00 PM

While there definitely is some truth to that, we simply cannot risk splitting the vote this time around. The opportunity to oust Obama is too great to allow internal differences to split the vote and put him back in for another disastrous four years.

Both the old guard GOP and the TEA partiers are going to have to have a little bit of give here to find someone who may not be quite so ideologically pure as either would like, but can still be acceptable and will beat Obama. Obama is incredibly beatable right now, and that's not likely to change, so there's no good reason to throw away the opportunity.

Why not? In other words, if there arrises the opportunity to elect a Romney, then you've "gained" nothing. You've elected another dyed in the wool liberal in Republican clothing. The disaster that is Obama will then continue...cept then it will be a Republican that gets the blame for the crash. Better to have a liberal in charge when the whole mess crashes around in my opinion. Otherwise, it's another squandered opportunity in order for people to have warm fuzzies because there's an "R" in the White House? Yay..we beat Obama.

If all we are into is "winning" elections, then just go for the most electible candidate. This isn't a football game to me.

The tea party is energized. It is not perfect, but it is on the right path, and presently it has the moral high ground and minorities are finally seeing this. I am finally seeing changes in the makeup of the Republican party with regards to breaking down the stereotypes of the "white" party. This is not a time to be be too overly concerned with making peace with the ones that have set back conservatism just to get a check in the win column. Real change as opposed to Obama change takes time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd71TEn5E6o

You would not see anything like this at a Romney or Gingrich or Palin rally.

txradioguy

06-18-2011, 12:05 PM

What are you going to do with a small third party in a primarily two party country? At 18% the Tea Party is outnumbered both by mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats.

IMHO the Tea party represents the majority of Republican voters...so I think you'd end up with the bulk of the Republican voters moving to the Tea Party and leaving the GOP filled with nothing but RINO's and party elites and in third place as the minority party.

Novaheart

06-18-2011, 12:07 PM

IMHO the Tea party represents the majority of Republican voters...so I think you'd end up with the bulk of the Republican voters moving to the Tea Party and leaving the GOP filled with nothing but RINO's and party elites and in third place as the minority party.

Your view from your window does not agree with the polls, nor the turn out.

txradioguy

06-18-2011, 12:10 PM

Your view from your window does not agree with the polls, nor the turn out.

No one gave Conservative Republican a.k.a. "Tea Party" candidates a chance in the 2010 midterms yet look what happened.

Just because someone doesn't go around wearing a large banner that says "I support the Tea Party"...doesn't mean they don't identify with what they stand for and vote for candidates who believe the same way.

Molon Labe

06-18-2011, 12:12 PM

Whenever I hear talk about how wonderful our 2 party system is and that we must win within the Republican party, I think of what George Carlin says in the first few minutes of this interview. You really don't have much choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt49DsfKDMc

lacarnut

06-18-2011, 12:32 PM

Why not? In other words, if there arrises the opportunity to elect a Romney, then you've "gained" nothing. You've elected another dyed in the wool liberal in Republican clothing. The disaster that is Obama will then continue...cept then it will be a Republican that gets the blame for the crash. Better to have a liberal in charge when the whole mess crashes around in my opinion. Otherwise, it's another squandered opportunity in order for people to have warm fuzzies because there's an "R" in the White House? Yay..we beat Obama.

If all we are into is "winning" elections, then just go for the most electible candidate. This isn't a football game to me.

The tea party is energized. It is not perfect, but it is on the right path, and presently it has the moral high ground and minorities are finally seeing this. I am finally seeing changes in the makeup of the Republican party with regards to breaking down the stereotypes of the "white" party. This is not a time to be be too overly concerned with making peace with the ones that have set back conservatism just to get a check in the win column. Real change as opposed to Obama change takes time.

Good post. A RINO in the W.H. will be an extension of Bush/Obama policies with a little tweaking and trimming here and there. Not what is needed to turn our economy, debt and job outlook around.

fettpett

06-18-2011, 12:35 PM

I think you are trying to convince yourself that the GOP is more right wing than it actually is. If the NYT poll is close, the 18% of the population would be in the Tea Party zone, meaning that about 36% of the GOP is in that zone. So 60% would reasonably be thought to be more centrist if we allow 4% to be way out in the far right.

What are you going to do with a small third party in a primarily two party country? At 18% the Tea Party is outnumbered both by mainstream Republicans and mainstream Democrats.

More people identify with what the TEA party stands for than what the extremely biased NYT (and I mean the paper in general) poll would even dream of.

and You didn't ream my posts, I said that I would rather the RINO's and Elites in the party left, the Liberal Republican's, not the guys that are just a tad to the center, but the guys that are die hard libs like Olympia Snow that vote with the Dems more often than not

AmPat

06-18-2011, 12:52 PM

Why not? In other words, if there arrises the opportunity to elect a Romney, then you've "gained" nothing. You've elected another dyed in the wool liberal in Republican clothing.

If all we are into is "winning" elections, then just go for the most electible candidate. This isn't a football game to me.

You would not see anything like this at a Romney or Gingrich or Palin rally.I disagree. I did a search for "palin-tea party rallys" and came up with many hits linking her and tea party rallys.
God forbid we elect Gingrich or Romney. These are the very turds who are tainted with cronyism and DC politics runs deep in their systems. They need to go. Once we have a primary winner, I will support that candidate against O Blah Blah no matter how bad he or she may be.

I believe that if we get a true conservative in the Tea Party and the GOP pushes a RINO, the registered GOPers will flock to the true conservative.

Molon Labe

06-18-2011, 01:18 PM

I disagree. I did a search for "palin-tea party rallys" and came up with many hits linking her and tea party rallys.
God forbid we elect Gingrich or Romney. These are the very turds who are tainted with cronyism and DC politics runs deep in their systems. They need to go. Once we have a primary winner, I will support that candidate against O Blah Blah no matter how bad he or she may be.

I believe that if we get a true conservative in the Tea Party and the GOP pushes a RINO, the registered GOPers will flock to the true conservative.

maybe so, but you don't see many people of "color" at a Palin rally. Here's a list of many of the congresscritters who ran on tea party platforms...

I could see myself rallying around many of them especially DeMint, Paul and Jones. I am not voting for a Romney.

Um, no it is not. Several factors got Obama elected. First, the economy was in decline and when that happens, the ruling party suffers. 2nd, the Democrats did a fantastic job of vote getting meaning they signed up a lot of potential Obama voters. Yes there was a modicum of fraud involved but not enough to swing an election but a lot of first time voters voted for Obama. 3rd, the GOP did not run a viable candidate and the candidate they did run ran on a platform of "but my name isn't George W. Bush". This rarely results in victory. Just ask Al Gore. 4th, the independents bought into Obama's hope and change cock and bull platform. 5th, I don't think picking Sarah Palin was the best thing McCain could have done. Oh his numbers jumped when she gave her RNC speech but once she began to make the national circuit, her hokieness started rubbing people the wrong way and her interviews made her sound less than intelligent("Which newspapers do you read?" "All of them." Oy). Now, some like to say that the black vote got Obama elected but blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats so they can run a billy goat and they will vote for a billy goat as long as said billy goat is a Democrat so that doesn't fly but these are a few reasons why Obama won. Not the 3rd party nonsense.

Now, if you want to say that's how Clinton and GWB were elected, then you'd have something there.

The Tea Party maybe represents 20% of the US population. They are an incredibly fucking loud 20%, but your vote isn't worth more if you're a zealot.

That's enough to win the Republican nomination, especially since the primaries are a lot more favorable to small but intense ideoglically driven minorites, but that candidate will get absolutely pasted in the general election. Put a Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin up against Barack Obama and you make it so he wont even be held accountable for his awful attempt at healthcare before or George Bush styled foreign policy; he just says (paraphrasing) "These people are fucking crazy", most of the American people believe him, and the Republicans lose.

Its fine by me really if you guy do that. The progress towards a strong socialist American state has been absolutely minuscule under Obama, but I'd hate to see it all undone and then go backwards a century under some bozo.

Rockntractor

06-18-2011, 05:55 PM

The Tea Party maybe represents 20% of the US population. They are an incredibly fucking loud 20%, but your vote isn't worth more if you're a zealot.

That's enough to win the Republican nomination, especially since the primaries are a lot more favorable to small but intense ideoglically driven minorites, but that candidate will get absolutely pasted in the general election. Put a Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin up against Barack Obama and you make it so he wont even be held accountable for his awful attempt at healthcare before or George Bush styled foreign policy; he just says (paraphrasing) "These people are fucking crazy", most of the American people believe him, and the Republicans lose.

Its fine by me really if you guy do that. The progress towards a strong socialist American state has been absolutely minuscule under Obama, but I'd hate to see it all undone and then go backwards a century under some bozo.

Go ahead laugh, were sending you to a reeducation camp right away when we win.

Bullshit. If Hillary was the one who won the Democratic nomination for President she would be President for the very same reason, by not being Bush. The Obumbler won the nomination by being a better bullshit artist than she was.

AmPat

06-19-2011, 10:44 AM

[QUOTE=KhrushchevsShoe;426311]The Deviant Dumb Dimbulb, Liberal, anti-American, Progressive, Socialist, DIMoRAT Party maybe represents 30% of the US population. They are an incredibly fucking loud, stupid, and obnoxious 30%, but your vote isn't worth more if you're an idiot.

That's enough to win the DIMoRAT nomination and office of the president, especially since the last general election was more favorable to small but intense ideoglically driven minorites, much like that last unqualified candidate got absolutely worshiped in the general election by the collective idiots on the left. Put anybody up against Barack Obama and you win even though the media will make it so he wont even be held accountable for his unlawful shoving of Socialist healthcare down our throats before or the disaster of his lack of a foreign policy; he just says (paraphrasing) "These people are fucking crazy", all of the liberal idiots believe him, but the Republicans wipe the floor anyway since most of the lies over the last three years have been exposed.

Its fine by me really if you guy (sic) do that. The progress towards a strong socialist American state has been absolutely accelerated under O Blah Blah, but I'd love to see worldwide tyranny in a century under another idiot bozo like Gore, Dean, O BAMY, Feinstein, Reid, Wiener, Smucky Shummer, etc, etc,,.

:cool:

Molon Labe

06-19-2011, 01:01 PM

Its fine by me really if you guy do that. The progress towards a strong socialist American state has been absolutely minuscule under Obama, but I'd hate to see it all undone and then go backwards a century under some bozo.

What I hear is

It would be a shame to actually follow the constitution.

cajunrevenge

06-19-2011, 04:43 PM

The Tea Party maybe represents 20% of the US population. They are an incredibly fucking loud 20%, but your vote isn't worth more if you're a zealot.

That's enough to win the Republican nomination, especially since the primaries are a lot more favorable to small but intense ideoglically driven minorites, but that candidate will get absolutely pasted in the general election. Put a Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin up against Barack Obama and you make it so he wont even be held accountable for his awful attempt at healthcare before or George Bush styled foreign policy; he just says (paraphrasing) "These people are fucking crazy", most of the American people believe him, and the Republicans lose.

Its fine by me really if you guy do that. The progress towards a strong socialist American state has been absolutely minuscule under Obama, but I'd hate to see it all undone and then go backwards a century under some bozo.

Much rather lose running a conservative than win running a RINO. Romney will never get my vote, if he is what the best the republican party can nominate then they deserve another 4 years of Obama.

KhrushchevsShoe

06-19-2011, 08:13 PM

What I hear is

It would be a shame to actually follow the constitution.

Its 2011, you're gonna have to move on. Times have changed.

CueSi

06-19-2011, 08:13 PM

Much rather lose running a conservative than win running a RINO. Romney will never get my vote, if he is what the best the republican party can nominate then they deserve another 4 years of Obama.

I'm a moderate republican and I mostly agree with this. I saw what he did in MA and I don't want any part of it. He can parrot the line all he wants, but - - it's not real. It's more of the business as usual.

~QC

Arroyo_Doble

06-19-2011, 08:23 PM

It would be great if there was a third party. It would be nice if Republicans could be Republicans again.

fettpett

06-19-2011, 09:51 PM

Its 2011, you're gonna have to move on. Times have changed.

the Constitution doesn't change dumbass, not without an amendment, it's you lefty dumbshits that believe otherwise

AmPat

06-20-2011, 12:35 AM

It would be great if there was a third party. It would be nice if Republicans could be Republicans again.

It would be better if DIMoRATS would act like they love their country instead of being dedicated to looting it.

Bailey

06-20-2011, 12:44 AM

Its 2011, you're gonna have to move on. Times have changed.

I dont follow your logic, are you saying we shouldnt follow the Constitution?
/

Zathras

06-20-2011, 03:00 AM

I dont follow your logic, are you saying we shouldnt follow the Constitution?
/

That's exactly what KS is saying. To him the Constitution is what you use to wipe your ass with, just like all the other DUmbass liberal trash that he is.

txradioguy

06-20-2011, 03:34 AM

See this is what you don't seem to get.... There are (D)'s in the movement as well! It's not about party, it's about country....

Exactly.

txradioguy

06-20-2011, 03:36 AM

I dont follow your logic, are you saying we shouldnt follow the Constitution?

He's of the belief...as are most Libs that the Constitution is an antiquated document written by a bunch of dead white guys that has no relevance to today and therefore should be modified and amended by the left as needed to achieve "social justice".

KhrushchevsShoe

06-20-2011, 03:37 AM

I dont follow your logic, are you saying we shouldnt follow the Constitution?
/

Word for word? No. Not anymore.

I think a lot of the positive sentiments towards the constitution in the 21st century are pretty well linked to its antiquity. While our empire collapses we are drawn to the positive moments of our global reign, the moon landing, World War 2, etc. Americans in general are extremely proud of those moments, and while we enter an unmitigated decline its only natural to look back on them with fondness.

But the constitution seems to hold a special place in American's hearts. It may hold some of that inherent rebellious nature we adore, our anti-colonial heritage that up until around the JFK-LBJ-Nixon years we were very vehement about upholding. Or its just a piece of flawed, but overall impressively forward-thinking, philosophy that can improve human society that's a source of pride.

In either case, its idolatry of a time that passed over a century ago. The beauty of the constitution was its ability to recognize the church's relationship with the state as a major source of social tension and sever that bond to prevent it from destroying our country. It was perfectly executed, and the domino effect of American independence ended the French and, later, British monarchies. However the same villain the church was to a prosperous and civil society is exactly what big business is now. We replaced one monster with another, maybe intentionally. Maybe if we could channel the same ingenuity that the founders had we could fix this issue. But so many people see the constitution as political gospel, where any alterations would corrupt its purity, that we have effectively sabotaged the only method we ever had at using the constitution the way it was intended: To combat whatever new societal evil threatened the well being and freedom of its people.

djones520

06-20-2011, 03:40 AM

You just preached a lot of stupid boy. A lot of stupid.

txradioguy

06-20-2011, 03:53 AM

Word for word? No. Not anymore.

I think a lot of the positive sentiments towards the constitution in the 21st century are pretty well linked to its antiquity. While our empire collapses we are drawn to the positive moments of our global reign, the moon landing, World War 2, etc. Americans in general are extremely proud of those moments, and while we enter an unmitigated decline its only natural to look back on them with fondness.

But the constitution seems to hold a special place in American's hearts. It may hold some of that inherent rebellious nature we adore, our anti-colonial heritage that up until around the JFK-LBJ-Nixon years we were very vehement about upholding. Or its just a piece of flawed, but overall impressively forward-thinking, philosophy that can improve human society that's a source of pride.

In either case, its idolatry of a time that passed over a century ago. The beauty of the constitution was its ability to recognize the church's relationship with the state as a major source of social tension and sever that bond to prevent it from destroying our country. It was perfectly executed, and the domino effect of American independence ended the French and, later, British monarchies. However the same villain the church was to a prosperous and civil society is exactly what big business is now. We replaced one monster with another, maybe intentionally. Maybe if we could channel the same ingenuity that the founders had we could fix this issue. But so many people see the constitution as political gospel, where any alterations would corrupt its purity, that we have effectively sabotaged the only method we ever had at using the constitution the way it was intended: To combat whatever new societal evil threatened the well being and freedom of its people.

Thank you for proving exactly what I said.

AmPat

06-20-2011, 09:20 AM

Thank you for proving exactly what I said.

What the idiot Shoe meant to say was:

We should look at all the new, progressive countries that are "cutting edge." Look at that awesome example of progressive excellence like Cuba and Venezuela. Look at that shining city on the hill known as Iran. Why, if we just threw that antiquated document called the Constitution out, we too could be a new wave example of totalitarian excellence and follow the pattern set by the Europeons. :rolleyes:

Adam Wood

06-20-2011, 09:35 AM

Bullshit. If Hillary was the one who won the Democratic nomination for President she would be President for the very same reason, by not being Bush. The Obumbler won the nomination by being a better bullshit artist than she was.And Black.

"It's time."

fettpett

06-20-2011, 09:56 AM

Word for word? No. Not anymore.

I think a lot of the positive sentiments towards the constitution in the 21st century are pretty well linked to its antiquity. While our empire collapses we are drawn to the positive moments of our global reign, the moon landing, World War 2, etc. Americans in general are extremely proud of those moments, and while we enter an unmitigated decline its only natural to look back on them with fondness.

But the constitution seems to hold a special place in American's hearts. It may hold some of that inherent rebellious nature we adore, our anti-colonial heritage that up until around the JFK-LBJ-Nixon years we were very vehement about upholding. Or its just a piece of flawed, but overall impressively forward-thinking, philosophy that can improve human society that's a source of pride.

In either case, its idolatry of a time that passed over a century ago. The beauty of the constitution was its ability to recognize the church's relationship with the state as a major source of social tension and sever that bond to prevent it from destroying our country. It was perfectly executed, and the domino effect of American independence ended the French and, later, British monarchies. However the same villain the church was to a prosperous and civil society is exactly what big business is now. We replaced one monster with another, maybe intentionally. Maybe if we could channel the same ingenuity that the founders had we could fix this issue. But so many people see the constitution as political gospel, where any alterations would corrupt its purity, that we have effectively sabotaged the only method we ever had at using the constitution the way it was intended: To combat whatever new societal evil threatened the well being and freedom of its people.